I recently attended a conference where bloggers and print journalists talked about the pros and cons of their respective professions
I noted that as a blogger, I am never censored. As a print journalist I was told, on more than one occasion; “Maggie, you can’t say that!” (even though I had evidence to back up my facts.) Usually, the editor was concerned that I would “scare the readers” or upset the publisher (and advertisers).
Of course, the downside to not having an editor is that I’m working without a net. If I get something wrong, no one has my back. On the other hand, my readers are knowledgeable, and are likely to question anything that looks peculiar. I count on you to do that, and at the same time, know that if I make serious errors—or too many small mistakes—I would lose my credibility.
But not all bloggers have alert readers. And because of the lack of editing, the blogosphere is clogged with posts that are silly, just plain nasty, and, all too often, simply not true.
Nevertheless, I think that the best blogs manage to keep the level of public discourse high, while enjoying first amendment freedoms that are difficult to achieve in mediums supported by advertising and owned by corporations.
Below, an excerpt from Gary Schwitzer’s Health News Blog that illustrates the problem.
“All over the country,” Schwitzer writes, “daily journalists working on newspapers or on radio or TV are now also being asked to publish blogs – often without any additional pay for the additional work.
“But I recently discovered a case where a reporter pressured to do a blog had that blog censored by a TV news director because he didn’t like what was in the blog.
“The reporter – a TV health reporter – posted two entries about some questionable (I would call them unethical) practices in TV news. One referred to the practice of medical centers buying air time within newscasts and having the message appear as news. The posting asked blog visitors:
‘What do you think of commercials for local health care behemoths that look like news? … Are you able to tell they are clearly commercials?’
“The other blog entry was about subscription services that provide health news for stations to fill their newscasts. The reporter, whose station often uses such a service, wrote on the blog:
“’I've noticed a lot of the subscription reports have to do with research. And not that I have anything against research — in fact, I think it's a very important part of medical advancement — but I believe the mass media need to be very careful about highlighting investigational procedures, products, and techniques. …I worry sometimes these packages peddle false hope, or at least, premature hope.”
Without being told in advance, the reporter soon noticed that “the blog entries had been deleted. The news director then called the reporter on the carpet and said that ‘He didn't think it was right to ask viewers what they thought about something management had already decided to do.’”
~~~~~~~~~~
I suppose one could argue that since the reporter took a pay check from the station, he should not publicly question management. But I happen to think that if we are going to keep journalism honest, journalists are in the best position to question potentially unethical practices.
Moreover, if the TV station wants a blog, it should accept the rules of the blogosphere: no censorship unless the blogger has his facts wrong. Here, the objection seemed to be that what the reporter was saying was all too true: he was writing about “something management had already decided to do.”
As you pointed out, it’s not the type of medium that matters, it is who controls the purse strings.
Blogs make it cheap for anyone to express an opinion (heard or not). Before this the best one could do with little money was stand on a soap box or fire up the mimeo machine.
IF Stone put out his own newsletter just for this reason.
Worrying about the credibility, honesty or motivations of bloggers is no different that anyone else addressing the public. After all it was the NY Times and Washington Post that published the most misleading information about WMD’s before the Iraq invasion. Because they had “credibility” their propagandizing carried more weight than it would have otherwise.
I don’t think any blog associated with a corporate site can be taken as truly independent and expecting them to adhere to blogger “ethics” is unrealistic. They are there to drive more business to the firm, whatever it’s line of business is.
Robert —
I agree.
Though there is still the question of how bloggers get paid.
I’m lucky–I work for a non-profit think tank and they let me publish my blog without interference.
I’m hopeful that more non-profits will sponsor blogs; that universities
will sponsor blogs (giving professors full freedom to say what they please) that
government agencies will
sponsor blogs (again with freedom of speech.
These are ways for bloggers to receive a paycheck.
It’s also possible that at some point a consortium of very good blogs would form an “HBO of the blogosphere” and readers would subscribe for access too all of them.
But I’d rather see the Internet remain free.
You noted Maggie that as a blogger, you are never censored. As a print journalist, the editor may be concerned what you would say would scare the readers. On occasion, I’ve been told that I “scare” readers on the bloggersphere.
I’ve researched cancer medicine and related isssues extensively. My writing style on the bloggersphere is sometimes sharp and intimidating, even to experts. However, it is a no-nonsense, yes sometimes harsh, but a honest writing style. Cancer patients need informed opinion good, bad or indifferent.
Major health care issues are discussed on blogs more extensively than they could ever be discussed in print media (letters to the editor, etc.). The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is probably the most important part of most blogs.
The interactive format allows rapid responses to medical and health care issues which frequently intertwine moral, ethical and legal concerns, and provides valuable feedback and commentary not available through traditional media.
Blogs are increasing the visibility of laypeople medical experts, who share tips about treatment and care giving from personal experience, and others have relied on them for straight talk about their health issues and bloggers often provide links to other blogs they favor.
Most of us are being responsible though it takes a great deal of character and perseverence. It is important that people study and manage their own problems. The blogger voice lives on and challenges an establishment of medicine and health care that is imperfect, but more importantly, refuses not to question the consequences.
Health Journalism or Health Blogging are particularly complex re censorship verses irresponsibility
Because in my opinion readers can and do actually can get harmed by irresponsible health reporting.
Mostly inciting fear or even panic and secondly by offering premature and/or false hope to truly desperate patients through so called “breakthrough” headlines.
I wrote on this topic on my own blog at http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com/2007/11/medical-journalists-you-too-1st-do-no.html
Thanks
Dr. Rick Lippin
Thanks for the comments–
Gregory, I agree that the blogosphere offers a unique opportunity to discuss a very complex topic in an open-ended forum where one can write at length, and readers can respond and debate.
And “scaring people” is not so terrible if you are warning them against simply accepting the conventional wisdom. Too often, the CW is wrong, and accepted without thinking.
Rick– thank you.
Medical Crisis Blogger–
Thanks for the link. I put it on my favorites– a good post for anyone interested in how mainstream medical jouranlism can spread half-truths and misinformation.
Recently published on: http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com
The Prevention of Ignorance
Historically, information sources provided to American citizens were limited due to the few methods available to the public, such as radio, TV, or news print. And also this information was subject to being filtered and, in some cases, delayed. This occurred for a number of reasons, which included political ones.
Now, and with arguably great elation, there is the internet, which can be rather beneficial for the average citizen.
Soon after the advent of the internet well over a decade ago, web logs were created, that are now termed ‘blogs’. At that time the blogs were referred to as personal journals or diaries visible on line. As time passed, blogs became a media medium, and blog communities evolved into addressing topics that often were not often addressed in mainstream media, as they crossed previously existing political and social lines. In addition, blogs provide immediate contributions by others, the readers of the posts of the blog authors, instead of the cumbersomeness of opinion and editorial pieces historically and not always presented in such media forms as newspapers or magazines.
The authors of blogs vary as far as their backgrounds and intent of what they choose to address on their blogs exactly, just as with other media forms. Some are employed by the very media sources that existed before them. Furthermore, they are not exonerated from the legalities of what is written, such as cases of libel. While we can presume that bloggers like to write, they may not be quality writers, yet several are in fact journalists, as well as doctors and lawyers, for example. But to write is to think, which I believe is a good quality one should have.
Yet presently, blogs have become quite a driving force for those with objectives and issues often opposed by others, and therefore have become a serious threat to others. These others may be politicians, our government, or corporations- all of which have been known to monitor the content of certain blogs of concern to them for their potential to negatively affect their image or their activities previously undisclosed. This is why blogs, on occasion, have become a media medium for whistleblowers, which will be addressed further in a moment.
While one disadvantage of blogs is the potential lack of reliability, blogs however do allow in addition to the comments of its readers the posting of authentic internal or confidential documents that typically are not created to be viewed by the public, yet are acquired by certain bloggers. For example, blogger Dr. Peter Rost, a whistleblower himself, not long ago posted a newsletter published by pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca on his blog site, and this newsletter was given to him by AstraZeneca’s employees who called themselves the ‘AZ Group of Seven’- with the intent of this group being to bring to the attention of others the illegal activity of off-label promotion of one of AZ’s cancer drugs promoted by their employer. Yet this particular concern by AZ seven, by surprise, is not what caught the attention of so many who viewed the posted newsletter by Dr. Rost and was read with great interest by others. It was instead a comment included in this newsletter that was stated by former regional AZ manager Mike Zubalagga, who was being interviewed by a district manager in this newsletter. Mr. Zubalagga, who in this newsletter posted on Dr Rost’s blog site, referred to doctors’ offices as ‘buckets of money’, which caught the attention of several readers. This and other statements by this man were in fact published in this newsletter clearly not reviewed before its publication. . Again, the statement and the newsletter created by AZ was indeed authentic and further validated due to the content being in the written word, which added credibility.
Mr. Zubalagga was fired the next day due to this ‘buckets of money’ comment due to the effect it had on the image of his employer. His manager resigned soon afterwards from AZ.
Blogs, one can safely conclude, reveal secrets.
And there have been other whistleblower cases on various blogs in addition to this one described a moment ago, which illustrates the power of blogs as being a very powerful and threatening media medium of valid information disclosure that others cannot prevent from occurring.
This, in my opinion, is true freedom of information- largely free of embellishments or selective omissions. It’s a step towards communication utopia, perhaps, yet a force that has the ability to both harm and protect many others.
Yet again, the information on these blogs should not be taken as absolute truth without proof to verify claims that may be made, as with other media sources. Of course, documents that are authentic is an example of a good validation source. And this, in my opinion, is the blog’s greatest value, combined with the comments on blogs from the growing number of readers who are allowed to contribute to the subject matter so quickly, which fuels the objectives of the blogs, which may be a type of Socratic learning.
Like other written statements, some on such internet sites are composed with respect of the written word. Others are not. It’s the freedom that may be most appealing of this new medium which has the ability to convert citizens into journalists who want to contribute to an issue of their concern they share with the blogger often with great conviction and accuracy.
Because we, the public, have a right to know what we are entitled to know and what we want to know. This is especially true if the information disclosed on blogs could potentially be adverse to our well-being.
Ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is power.
“Information is the seed of an idea, and only grows when it’s watered.” — Heinz V. Berger
Dan Abshear
Dan–
Thank you.
You write “Ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is power.”
I would add only that information (or pseudo-information) is not knowledge.
But while the blogsphere is clogged with too much “information” (facts and numbers that are not presented in context) it also offers much knowledge.
Blogger’s are no more immune from censorship than anyone else, especially if its their day-job. Political blogs will not bite the hand that feeds them, and even the supposed “independent” partisan blogs clearly pick and choose candidates most willing to dollop their websites with campaign advertisements. Is it any wonder that the “Netroots” bloggers like DailyKos or RedState on both sides of the aisle link to donation pages on their websites for candidates that funnel it right back to them?
The presumption is censorship equals some higher-up stamping no across a news article; its been internalized much more than that. Unless one lives on a self sufficient commune, writing words doesn’t feed you unless someones your patron, either for-profit or non-profit. And you WILL avoid, consciously or subconsciously, anything that may imperil that. No one can “Write whatever they want”, and its unrealistic to hold any person or medium up as “unbought”. Because then we make the mistake of not adjusting for potential conflicts of interest, confident in our smug appraisal that no one can be bought or sold in the blogosphere.
I don’t think any blog associated with a corporate site can be taken as truly independent and expecting them to adhere to blogger “ethics” is unrealistic. They are there to drive more business to the firm, whatever it’s line of business is.